Well physics and "the creator" would make strange bed fellows. But you have used Newton who it is well know was very religious. It would be easy to rewrite third law as "you can maybe be Prometheus but you can never be a creator" Newton I believe wanted mv for kinetic energy since this fitted better with his beliefs.
Well physics and "the creator" would make strange bed fellows. But you have used Newton who it is well know was very religious. It would be easy to rewrite third law as "you can maybe be Prometheus but you can never be a creator" Newton I believe wanted mv for kinetic energy since this fitted better with his beliefs.
You have a source for that?
mv
2/2 (kinetic energy) is defined by integrating the work done to move the object over time. There is no theology involved.
The wind and fan in a closed space is simply a reformulation of the old pigeons flying in a cargo jet problem.
So that you know what camp I am in. There are no "laws of physics" only theories of physics.
Facts/laws are observations of how the world works, and theories are tested descriptions of how/why those facts/laws are the way they are.
They are different things. And a theory in physics is not the same as a theory in everyday language.
At the same time as Newton, Leibniz thought kinetic energy was mv² which was a more scientific estimation given the experimental evidence. Later it was a woman that came up with the correct formula.
Thread locked. 🔒
chasemz, this forum is built on civil discourse, and your posts digressed further and further from civil discourse.
The original post is a mechanical physics question, not a spaceflight question. This is a spaceflight forum, not a physics forum.